If Evolution is True, why do Humans need a Savior but the Great Apes do Not?

[Tassman]

Again, tradition is factual evidence. It is not all the factual evidence there is, but it is evidence and it is about facts.

That they are based on oral tradition without eyewitness reports and very late has no basis in the prime evidence we have for such things - tradition.

There are two kinds of "fairy stories".

There are "fairy tales" like "Puss in Boots" which even gullible do not believe are true, except for a very short time.

There are traditions about men interacting with fairies, and I believe they are usually rather factual.

What goes under "Puss in the Boots" heading or other heading depends on the Sitz im Leben of the narrative.

Seriously!

I did not say "necessarily", I said "unless there are facts of superior credibility opposing its version of them."

You have it back-to-front. We do not accept tradition as authoritative UNLESS there is factual evidence supporting it.

OK, how do you know US began as independent from UK by George Washington? By tradition.

No, we know about George Washington via historical-critical methodology.

As opposed to the Jesus story, there is are multiple pieces and types of evidence to enable a reliable history of George Washington.

The question was about your criterium.

No, it is your problem that you are Humean.

[hansgeorg]

Yes.

Precisely.

I believe that George Washington became the leader of the independence fighters or rebels in 1776 and later the first president of the United States, because those statments and informations have been handed down from their generation (his and King George's and a few more's) to ours.

How exactly do YOU propose to establish the historical facts without tradition?

Seriously!

Seriously, I should think so.

You have it back-to-front. We do not accept tradition as authoritative UNLESS there is factual evidence supporting it.

I am saying the ones who have it back to front are you guys. The only or most salient factual evidence which can confirm or support one tradition is another tradition.

No, we know about George Washington via historical-critical methodology.

As opposed to the Jesus story, there is are multiple pieces and types of evidence to enable a reliable history of George Washington.

We know about George Washington via tradition, and if the historical-critical methodology were consistently applied to him as it is (by your likes) to the Gospels, it would doom the certainty about George Washington.

Unlike me, and don't call him "St Paul", but "St Paul the First Hermit", those are two different people. When you say "St Paul" you mean the one who comes in Acts and who wrote NT Epistles galore. St Paul the First Hermit fled from town to desert in 250 AD from the persecution by Decius.

There are events which are very unexplained by modern science.

There are also events which as event type are very well explained, but coming exactly when they did, involve a fairly easy inference to a Providence guiding the timing.

Hume reasoned basically like this : "we know from experience that miracles don't occur, therefore any narrative involving a miracle is suspect".

But he cannot reason about the total experience without going to the narratives and if he does, so much miracles occur that his criterium would leave no narratives and no history left. He basically was unaware (perhaps deliberately after being confronted with Catholic narratives) of how much narratives involve miracles, so he based his assessment of our "experience" on a skewed sample.

[Tassman]

Yes.

Precisely.

I believe that George Washington became the leader of the independence fighters or rebels in 1776 and later the first president of the United States, because those statments and informations have been handed down from their generation (his and King George's and a few more's) to ours.

How exactly do YOU propose to establish the historical facts without tradition?

The tradition is grounded in verifiable factual evidence, which in the case of George Washington is considerable...unlike the gospels.

Seriously, I should think so.

So you seriously think that

I am saying the ones who have it back to front are you guys. The only or most salient factual evidence which can confirm or support one tradition is another tradition.

Using a factually unsupported tradition to support anothe

We know about George Washington via tradition, and if the historical-critical methodology were consistently applied to him as it is (by your likes) to the Gospels, it would doom the certainty about George Washington.

When the historical-critical method is applied to George Washington we establish without doubt that such a figure existed, the same factual certainty does not apply to the gospels.

Unlike me, and don't call him "St Paul", but "St Paul the First Hermit", those are two different people. When you say "St Paul" you mean the one who comes in Acts and who wrote NT Epistles galore. St Paul the First Hermit fled from town to desert in 250 AD from the persecution by Decius.

There are events which are very unexplained by modern science.

There are also events which as event type are very well explained, but coming exactly when they did, involve a fairly easy inference to a Providence guiding the timing.

There is no reason to infer that

Hume reasoned basically like this : "we know from experience that miracles don't occur, therefore any narrative involving a miracle is suspect".

But he cannot reason about the total experience without going to the narratives and if he does, so much miracles occur that his criterium would leave no narratives and no history left. He basically was unaware (perhaps deliberately after being confronted with Catholic narratives) of how much narratives involve miracles, so he based his assessment of our "experience" on a skewed sample.

[hansgeorg]

The tradition is grounded in verifiable factual evidence, which in the case of George Washington is considerable...unlike the gospels.

When the tradition started, it was presumably grounded in lots of back then verifiable factual evidence, which I presume to be the case with the Gospels too.

Most of that evidence is now to us accessible only through tradition, which is the case with Gospels too.

So you seriously think that

No, not meaning that kind of "fairies".

I mean stories like Tam Lin and so.

Using a factually unsupported tradition to support anothe

Well, since tradition is what gives us the facts, I am not against opening the door to what you and Hume would call myths, magic and superstition. I am not Humean, and I am not Protestant.

When the historical-critical method is applied to George Washington we establish without doubt that such a figure existed, the same factual certainty does not apply to the gospels.

I wonder very much how much of the historical-critical method is actually applies to George Washington and the Gospels in the same way.

At least you seem to be heavy on anti-miraculous bias.

And your disdain for historic accuracy makes you very ill fitted to be preaching on what to take at face value or not.

There is no reason to infer that

There is plenty, as with miracles, once you start looking at history the right way.

Ehrman is simply parrotting Hume and so are you.

And Hume was not a good scientist who gave good scientific explanations for miracles accepted as such by a "more credulous" (that is a Protestant talking about his Catholic ancestors!) and prescientific (as if that existed) age. He was just bloviating on such explanations arguably existing.

The problem is, when this is applied, there are so many stories where no such explanation exists, that Hume's dictum is a recipe for wilful ignorance or radical scepsis about history. If we must throw out what Hume wants to throw out, there is not much reason to retain George Washington or Napoleon's losing at Waterloo either.

[Tassman]

When the tradition started, it was presumably grounded in lots of back then verifiable factual evidence, which I presume to be the case with the Gospels too.

Most of that evidence is now to us accessible only through tradition, which is the case with Gospels too.

Yes! And oral tradition is open to embellishment and redaction.

Well, since tradition is what gives us the facts, I am not against opening the door to what you and Hume would call myths, magic and superstition. I am not Humean, and I am not Protestant.

Tradition does not give us verifiable facts. What gives us the facts are multiple pieces of evidence, multiple types of evidence, multiple sources of evidence, independent sources, contemporary evidence and internal consistency of the available evidence. The fewer of these elements, the weaker the claim is concerning the accuracy of an historical event...as with the gospels.

I wonder very much how much of the historical-critical method is actually applies to George Washington and the Gospels in the same way.

At least you seem to be heavy on anti-miraculous bias.

Miracles are the least probable explanation of inexplicable events, whether in daily life or history.

And your disdain for historic accuracy makes you very ill fitted to be preaching on what to take at face value or not.

The disdain for accurate history is yours; you seem prepared to accept unverifiable folk-tales as history.

There is plenty, as with miracles, once you start looking at history the right way.

Ehrman is simply parrotting Hume and so are you.

And Hume was not a good scientist who gave good scientific explanations for miracles accepted as such by a "more credulous" (that is a Protestant talking about his Catholic ancestors!) and prescientific (as if that existed) age. He was just bloviating on such explanations arguably existing.

The problem is, when this is applied, there are so many stories where no such explanation exists, that Hume's dictum is a recipe for wilful ignorance or radical scepsis about history. If we must throw out what Hume wants to throw out, there is not much reason to retain George Washington or Napoleon's losing at Waterloo either.

Ehrman is good historian, you are not.

[psstein]

In ancient history, it's not uncommon for important events to be known only through one source produced hundreds of years after the fact...

[Doug Shaver]

In ancient history, it's not uncommon for important events to be known only through one source produced hundreds of years after the fact...

What is not uncommon is for lots of people to think they know something happened if just one source says it happened. It is also quite common for them to be unaware of any reservations that professional historians might have about the reliability of that source.

[JonathanL]

What is not uncommon is for lots of people to think they know something happened if just one source says it happened. It is also quite common for them to be unaware of any reservations that professional historians might have about the reliability of that source.

Then of course there's the all too common issue with internet atheists who have more reservations with the Bible as a reliable historical source than what professional historians themselves have, i.e the Jesus myth theory.

[shunyadragon]

Then of course there's the all too common issue with internet atheists who have more reservations with the Bible as a reliable historical source than what professional historians themselves have, i.e the Jesus myth theory.

I believe the issue is how the majority of academic historians view ancient narrative sources, and how many sources, and archeological evidence is available to collaborate the reliability of any one historical narrative, and not some that have either a theistic or a secular humanist agenda.

Actually, Jesus is accepted as a historical person by most historians, but the traditional Christian claims of a Divine Messiah and the miracles are not considered historical events by the majority of academic historians. Some describe him also as a healer and miracle performer, but they also acknowledge that many people in history make this claim, and these claims are not considered unique nor exceptional.

The difference between considering Jesus as a mythical person, and the historian who considers Jesus a real person from the secular perspective and the divine claims as mythical is a matter of degree. Crossan is an example of a theologian/historian that considers Jesus to be a real person, an idealistic rebel rabbi reformer, but does not consider the divine claims and miraculous nature of his life as mythical.

[Doug Shaver]

It is also quite common for them to be unaware of any reservations that professional historians might have about the reliability of that source.

Then of course there's the all too common issue with internet atheists who have more reservations with the Bible as a reliable historical source than what professional historians themselves have, i.e the Jesus myth theory.

[hansgeorg]

Yes! And oral tradition is open to embellishment and redaction.

Wait a second or two.

I am speaking of "tradition", you are speaking of "oral tradition".

Second, once a tradition is established, oral or not, it is rather difficult for it to change, unless there is a deliberate effort to change it.

Tradition does not give us verifiable facts. What gives us the facts are multiple pieces of evidence, multiple types of evidence, multiple sources of evidence, independent sources, contemporary evidence and internal consistency of the available evidence. The fewer of these elements, the weaker the claim is concerning the accuracy of an historical event...as with the gospels.

"What gives us the facts are multiple pieces of evidence," - most of which are STILL from tradition.

"multiple types of evidence," - and most of these are from tradition.

"multiple sources of evidence," - most of which are available through tradition.

"independent sources," - at best from independent traditions (as with Flood!), at worst the sources independent of each other are from same tradition.

"contemporary evidence" - most definitely a thing which we rely on tradition for.

And note on this one that the most contemporary evidence you have of any complex narrative of the reign of Tiberius is from the Gospellers.

"and internal consistency of the available evidence." - Of available evidence usually, though not exclusively, available from tradition.

Though the more evidence the better, sometimes we do only have one piece of evidence from tradition.

In the case of George Washington, we do have rather more pieces of evidence, but I defy you to enumerate them and I'll check out which ones depend on tradition.

Miracles are the least probable explanation of inexplicable events, whether in daily life or history.

The problems with that one are huge.

One is Humean prejudice. And one is classing perceived miracles as "inexplicable" when instead there is a rather easy and straightforward explanation, namely divine intervention.

The disdain for accurate history is yours; you seem prepared to accept unverifiable folk-tales as history.

Since popular legends are in fact tradition, they are historic evidence. Not so entertainment fiction, and which is which, the popular tradition usually distinguishes.

Not even close to true.

My conclusion after studying rather more history than most is, either you take tradition at face value until proven wrong, and in that case you land up as a religious man - and Catholicism has the best confirmations - or you start out with a Humean bias, and you have to dismiss more and more of history, and indeed much more than Hume would have reckoned with.

Ehrman is good historian, you are not.

He might be parrotting Hume even while being in other respects a good historian.

In ancient history, it's not uncommon for important events to be known only through one source produced hundreds of years after the fact...

Which is presumed to correctly reflect a tradition available to the source when he wrote.

Which tradition is, except when unlikely for other reasons, presumed to be accurate. I am pushing this presumption of accuracy first further than most, but it is there well beside my own view.

What is not uncommon is for lots of people to think they know something happened if just one source says it happened. It is also quite common for them to be unaware of any reservations that professional historians might have about the reliability of that source.

And since Hume, when it comes to miracles, professional historians can be known to have a certain bias.

I believe the issue is how the majority of academic historians view ancient narrative sources, and how many sources, and archeological evidence is available to collaborate the reliability of any one historical narrative, and not some that have either a theistic or a secular humanist agenda.

However, on both sides there is a Humean agenda, by now.

Actually, Jesus is accepted as a historical person by most historians, but the traditional Christian claims of a Divine Messiah and the miracles are not considered historical events by the majority of academic historians. Some describe him also as a healer and miracle performer, but they also acknowledge that many people in history make this claim, and these claims are not considered unique nor exceptional.

I think in some countries a majority of academic historians is bowtowing to Hume.

The difference between considering Jesus as a mythical person, and the historian who considers Jesus a real person from the secular perspective and the divine claims as mythical is a matter of degree. Crossan is an example of a theologian/historian that considers Jesus to be a real person, an idealistic rebel rabbi reformer, but does not consider the divine claims and miraculous nature of his life as mythical.

There is a problem with this approach.

It makes for making tradition a "wax nose". The narratives we do have directly concerning Him are full of miracles, unless you take very short notices where it cannot be ascertained.

If and insofar there is an academic near consensus against the miracles, I am regarding this as a consequence of Humean bias.

[Tassman]

Wait a second or two.

I am speaking of "tradition", you are speaking of "oral tradition".

Second, once a tradition is established, oral or not, it is rather difficult for it to change, unless there is a deliberate effort to change it.

Or, more to the point, until facts come to light that discredit the tradition.

In the case of George Washington, we do have rather more pieces of evidence, but I defy you to enumerate them and I'll check out which ones depend on tradition.

The problems with that one are huge.

Nonsense!

One is Humean prejudice. And one is classing perceived miracles as "inexplicable" when instead there is a rather easy and straightforward explanation, namely divine intervention.

Since popular legends are in fact tradition, they are historic evidence. Not so entertainment fiction, and which is which, the popular tradition usually distinguishes.

Not even close to true.

My conclusion after studying rather more history than most is, either you take tradition at face value until proven wrong, and in that case you land up as a religious man - and Catholicism has the best confirmations - or you start out with a Humean bias, and you have to dismiss more and more of history, and indeed much more than Hume would have reckoned with.

He might be parrotting Hume even while being in other respects a good historian.

[Doug Shaver]

If and insofar there is an academic near consensus against the miracles, I am regarding this as a consequence of Humean bias.

How do you define "bias"?

[hansgeorg]

statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation, especially by word of mouth

Or, more to the point, until facts come to light that discredit the tradition.

Yes - if they do. And if so usually from more reliable parts of "same tradition" or from more reliable traditions.

statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation, especially by word of mouth

"And, very often with regard to historical figures including Washington, we know what they looked like from portraits, statues, busts and coins etc."

The "bonus pastor" icons would probably reflect how Jesus looked when young. The later iconography, which has a beard, is probably from either the Shroud he was buried in, or the Veil of Veronica or the picture sent to Edessa to King Abgar.

Nonsense!

We'll see in a moment.

If any dead had ever risen when the name of Tinkerbell had been invoked, we might discuss that.

As you just showed in the George Washington case : most of the things you accept as "factual evidence supporting tradition" are in fact either in themselves tradition or depending on it.

When a man is dead and another man says "Lazarus, come out of the grave!" or "Lazarus, come out of there!" I am not with an "unexplained event" which might have a natural explanation if in fact he also comes out.

In such a case, I am explaining the event as a miracle. Unless there is reason to believe there was fraud, which is unlikely considering the tomb structure and the fact Jesus didn't know of the event in advance : Lazarus had died as a sick man, while Jesus was absent. Not an ideal fake corpse for a fake miracle, if you ask me.

[hansgeorg]

How do you define "bias"?

Here is wiki:

Bias is an inclination or outlook to present or hold a partial perspective, often accompanied by a refusal to consider the possible merits of alternative points of view. Biases can be learned implicitly within cultural contexts. People may develop biases toward or against an individual, an ethnic group, a nation, a religion, a social class, a political party, theoretical paradigms and ideologies within academic domains, or a species.[1] Biased means one-sided, lacking a neutral viewpoint, or not having an open mind. Bias can come in many forms and is related to prejudice and intuition.[2]

In science and engineering, a bias is a systematic error. Statistical bias results from an unfair sampling of a population, or from an estimation process that does not give accurate results on average.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias